If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Nevada Accepting All States Medical Marijuana Cards

I did some searching (not much admittedly) but I understand that there is a proposal for Nevada to accept medical marijuana cards from all states.

I find it interesting that the state will allow this but won't recognize CFP or CCW from all states.

Has anyone else heard of this proposal? Maybe I am being a bit sensitive but this just rubs me the wrong way.

Dave
"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
"If God himself asked me to carry a Glock I'd consider casting my lot with Satan"

the difference is that 2A is a federal fundamental right, so states infringe it, and marijuana is federally illegal, so states allow it.
It's all about ******* on the federal government. No wonder why the federal government is in a constant power grab.

the difference is that 2A is a federal fundamental right, so states infringe it, and marijuana is federally illegal, so states allow it.
It's all about ******* on the federal government. No wonder why the federal government is in a constant power grab.

The 2nd Amendment is a restriction on the government re RKBA. It does not create that right, it affirms it and says "hands off."

You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

The 2nd Amendment is a restriction on the government re RKBA. It does not create that right, it affirms it and says "hands off."

correcting "federal fundamental right" with "restriction on the government re RKBA" is insulting to me, as they mean exactly the same thing. I see you failed to bold "fundamental" in my quote just for the sake of bolstering your unnecessary argument. The bill of rights, including the second amendment, was ratified by our federal representatives 15 years after the country was founded. Whether we like it or not, the second amendment is federal law, not divine law. Yes, it's there to protect us from a tyrannical government, I never said it wasn't, but 3/4 of the house, 2/3 of the senate, and a president is all the anti-gunners need to make that amendment magically null and void, and just one or two more ultra-liberal supreme court justices will have the same effect through their right to "interpret" the constitution.

correcting "federal fundamental right" with "restriction on the government re RKBA" is insulting to me, as they mean exactly the same thing. I see you failed to bold "fundamental" in my quote just for the sake of bolstering your unnecessary argument. The bill of rights, including the second amendment, was ratified by our federal representatives 15 years after the country was founded. Whether we like it or not, the second amendment is federal law, not divine law. Yes, it's there to protect us from a tyrannical government, I never said it wasn't, but 3/4 of the house, 2/3 of the senate, and a president is all the anti-gunners need to make that amendment magically null and void, and just one or two more ultra-liberal supreme court justices will have the same effect through their right to "interpret" the constitution.

Really? You think I'm insulting you? Do you accuse me of breaking a Forum Rule?

More is the shame you miss the point. My reply was as much about informing those less knowledgeable as it was about clarifying your statement. If asked I hold, as do most here, that the RKBA is a natural/divine/fundamental right, and that it did not begin with the BoR. The 2nd Amendment creates nothing we did not already have.

Whatever modifiers you use, the 2A is not a federal right. Again - it is a restriction on the government.

BTW - our Constitution can also be altered or amended by a Constitutional Convention, which I vehemently oppose.

Last edited by Grapeshot; 11-20-2014 at 06:59 AM.

You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

It is a silly argument since the RKBA as a fundamental/divine/natural (depending on your spiritual position) right is a belief not a fact. A belief I happen to share but that's beside the point.
You may believe you have a right but in practice you have no rights outside what is granted by the government.

"I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

Really? You think I'm insulting you? Do you accuse me of breaking a Forum Rule?

I was insulted because I felt that you initiated an unnecessary semantic argument by correcting me. I don't think that constitutes an accusation of breaking forum rules, and I made no allegations of such.

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

More is the shame you miss the point. My reply was as much about informing those less knowledgeable as it was about clarifying your statement. If asked I hold, as do most here, that the RKBA is a natural/divine/fundamental right, and that it did not begin with the BoR. The 2nd Amendment creates nothing we did not already have.

Whatever modifiers you use, the 2A is not a federal right. Again - it is a restriction on the government.

I understand your argument as being metaphysical. A human has the right to pick up and own something. I agree with that, but my argument is pragmatic. Sure, a human can physically pick up something, sure a human can physically own something, but social factors can cause punishments for those actions. It is a metaphysical right for someone in Mexico to own a gun, but pragmatically speaking it is not going to result in anything good if the federales find out about it. This is because no matter where you are, you live under a system of government that makes up its own rules and has the power to change them. The "restriction on the government" is a law, and it's a law that works for the people not against it, so it's a right granted by the federal government so that no state under the federal government can take that right away.

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

BTW - our Constitution can also be altered or amended by a Constitutional Convention, which I vehemently oppose.

true, and that sucks.

Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns

It is a silly argument since the RKBA as a fundamental/divine/natural (depending on your spiritual position) right is a belief not a fact. A belief I happen to share but that's beside the point.
You may believe you have a right but in practice you have no rights outside what is granted by the government.

Agreed

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Many people today find this to be an incredible fact.

I agree, but not only the federal government; the state governments too. Federal law trumps state law. The right to bear arms is a law just like the right to freedom of speech. If a state bans guns entirely and begin enforcing a gun ban, they have violated the law and the people can have their grievances brought up before a federal court. If a state bans preaching your beliefs on the street, the state is breaking the law and the people have the same right to a redress of grievances.

If the federal government disappeared, the US Constitution would disappear with it. Now this wouldn't really affect Nevada because its constitution is so similar to the US bill of rights, but if you look at california's constitution, they have no right to bear arms, and any dissolution of the federal government would probably result in an enforceable gun ban in california. A man caught with owning a gun there would be treated the same as a man who was speeding. there would be a charge, no federal law (which is all a US constitutional amendment is) on the books that conflicts it so no appeal, and no federal court to take it to saying that his rights have been violated. All he can do is write his state congressman.

"We have these unalienable rights because we are free human beings. Unalienable, in a legal sense, means these rights cannot be transferred and are not subject to man-made law; in other words, they cannot be infringed upon."
Then a paragraph later:
"We no longer have the right to peaceably assemble or petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So if you have these rights given by nature how can you then say you no longer have them?
Because the government took them. Took what cannot be taken lol.
Like I said it's a belief not fact. And it's based mainly on morality. Just like some people used to have the right to own other people. Was that a natural right? Nah just a government granted one since we now believe it's immoral. The right to kill someone trying to kill you? Yeah that's a divine right because it's BELIEVED to be moral.

"I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

It is pretty clear that the Fed will keep taking our rights until we don't let them take anymore.
That is the path of every government system in the history of the World, our current government is no exception...

Last edited by Raleigh; 11-21-2014 at 01:52 AM.

Dave
"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
"If God himself asked me to carry a Glock I'd consider casting my lot with Satan"

The bill of rights in the U.S. Constitution enumerate those rights that the founders believed to be the most likely to be trampled on by Federal and state governments. It also mentions that there are other fundamental rights not written down, but none the less reserved by the people. Fundamental in this regard meaning God given or natural rights.

The states, by joining the union, and ratifying the Constitution, agreed to live by it. By extension the political subdivisions of the state, county and municipal governments are bound by it as well.

Federal law only trumps state law in those powers that are directly granted to the federal government by the Constitution, all others being reserved to the states and the people. All of those powers are enumerated within the Constitution. As an example, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the regulation of smoking material. Federal law does not trump State Constitutions either.

Now, realistically, the only rights we have are those we are willing to defend. The right to defend our rights is one of those non-enumerated rights the Bill of Rights was talking about I believe.

TBG

Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

Well, technically, we will recognize a permit from any state whose standards for qualifying for such are at least as stringent as our own.

I've no idea how medical marijuana cards are regulated in any state. Also, NEVER expect laws to be consistent anyway.

While Nevada will initially honor all MJ permits, I think Nevada will start weeding out other states' permits after Nevada discovers that certain other states don't require actual toking practice before issuing the permits to their residents.

All of this "medical marijuana" is a bunch of crap! Just a bunch of stoners who claim to have sleeping issues or some other made up condition. A very small percentage may actually use it for medical reasons.

All of this "medical marijuana" is a bunch of crap! Just a bunch of stoners who claim to have sleeping issues or some other made up condition. A very small percentage may actually use it for medical reasons.

Agreed, and you got my point! Everyone who carries does it primarily for self defense, a Constitutional Right, most people with "Pot Cards" just want to get high...

Dave
"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
"If God himself asked me to carry a Glock I'd consider casting my lot with Satan"

All of this "medical marijuana" is a bunch of crap! Just a bunch of stoners who claim to have sleeping issues or some other made up condition. A very small percentage may actually use it for medical reasons.

Alcohol is only used for medicinal purposes as well...

"It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

All of this "medical marijuana" is a bunch of crap! Just a bunch of stoners who claim to have sleeping issues or some other made up condition. A very small percentage may actually use it for medical reasons.

I have spoken to people in states that only allow it for medical purposes. When I ask what was their medical condition that required them to use weed, they cannot remember.

Proof that medical weed has amazing effects - curing people so well so that they cannot even remember or have symptoms of the original condition!

Really, want to shove heroin into your body? Have at it dude, its your own body.